-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
Cochrane Review: 'Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome', Larun et al. - New version October 2019 and new date December 2024
Lucibee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Andy
Retired committee member
As I noted here, https://www.s4me.info/threads/uk-cf...e-10th-and-11th-march-2020.11813/#post-236183, Karla Soares-Weiser is now not attending the CMRC conference, although two of her colleagues are. If I get the opportunity then I will talk to them about it.
Caroline Struthers
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Latest timeline of link-gate - correspondence with Rachel Marshall, Senior Editor, Cochrane
It's so confusing. They changed the conclusions of the previous version of the review in August. Then they republished it (with presumably lots of other changes to the text) in October 2019. With a big flag at the top saying "conclusions changed". This has now gone, never to return I guess. I almost feel like it's deliberate...
Wednesday 12th Feb 2020
Dear Rachel
Please can you point me to where it’s still recorded that the conclusions changed again between the note on 19 August 2019 (on version 7 published in 2017) and version 8 published on 2 October 2019? If the conclusions in fact didn’t change again between August 2019 and October 2019, please let me know.
Many thanks
Caroline
Friday 14th Feb 2020
Dear Caroline,
There was no version of the review published in August 2019. The note written in August 2019 relates to the review published in October 2019, but there was some delay between the note being written and the review being published. The published review on the library has now been amended to clarify that the note written in August 2019 refers to the changes made to the October 2019 version. I have also passed on my comments to the team working on the Cochrane Library website about the potential for mismatching dates to cause confusion for readers, which will be considered in a future assessment of versioning of Cochrane Reviews.
I hope this addresses your points. Just to let you know I am now on leave, returning to the office on Monday 24th February.
With best regards, Rachel
Friday 14th Feb 2020
Thanks for your efforts Rachel
It’s certainly confusing, and it’s a shame that the prominent “conclusions changed” flag has now disappeared from the review because, as you pointed out, the conclusions didn’t change between the addition of the note with the link and the conclusions changing in August/October. The note about the link was not “an amendment” to the review. Please can you explain why this couldn’t have been avoided by using the “Linked to the review” facility? I repeatedly suggested this, but I never got an answer as to why it was not possible. I don’t even know if you understood what I was suggesting because every time it was ignored. I am happy to accept you can’t do it, but not without a, preferably sensible, reason.
There is now another statement about the review which needs to be linked to it. https://www.cochrane.org/news/appointment-lead-independent-advisory-group. I dread to think what confusion will ensue if I ask for that to happen. Would I have to submit feedback again? I don’t think either you or I could face it. Please consider using the “Linked to this review” facility for both statements, or let me know why that is not possible.
The systems around versioning definitely need updating and I am grateful you have passed on comments about the confusion it causes for readers
Best wishes
Caroline
inox
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
For the Chinese herbs one that got withdrawn, the page now looks like this:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006348.pub3/full/es
You can access the review still, but only via the version controll section. (At least that’s what I’m able to find) The main page is clearly marked, and has the reasoning for withdrawing.
Caroline Struthers
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I am fairly sure the only reason the Exercise one didn't get withdrawn is because the authors didn't agree to let it happen
Which just demonstrates a big weakness for Cochrane. It shows that there is no editorial control as the authors ultimately have power to decide if mistakes remain published.
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Bit of a problem to the idea of science being self-correcting if that process is deliberately broken.
Science: we must be self-correcting
Cochrane: well, unless you don't feel like it then it's OK let's not hurt feelings let's hurt people instead so we don't look bad?
Especially considering the authors of the review essentially graded their own work, after having written their own questions, then somehow changed the answer keys mid-test but were given approval to change those answers and they still count as a perfect score (because 60/100 is now a perfect score, of course), somehow actually having answered using material from an unrelated discipline but that's OK because the classroom change was approved by the school administrators.
Barry
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Good question.
I'll be there. I was looking forward to meeting her. Too bad.
and because undoubtedly very, very powerful people were yelling behind the scenes.
That is now considered best practice.
Barry
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Yes. I would not be at all surprised if very persuasive words and 'encouragements' were not exercised pretty high up in the corridors of power, given how much money it saves (in the term of one government anyway) to foster the cheapskate treatment options. In fact I'd be amazed if it were not happening. All very low key of course, and fully loaded with plausible deniability.
Caroline Struthers
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I have suggested on Twitter it go to the Cochrane Work Group - so the review will focus on objective outcomes. The editor of that group (Jos Verbeek) is my last remaining friend in Cochrane. Even he hasn't really looked at it properly. He seems keen though and he's sensible. https://work.cochrane.org/
Caroline Struthers
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I was looking forward to you meeting her too. I would have paid A LOT for tickets to see it in fact. I met her in July along with two patients. It was very amicable. I was greeted with a hug, no less. Before she then asked me whether we'd ever met before. Obviously we had, which was why I let her hug me...didn't want to appear rude. And since then she's ignored pretty much all my emails. It's like the meeting never happened. Weird.
Barry
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Hmmm ... let's hope that doesn't indicate all show and no action.